Good to hear from you. My ECNII machine still sits on the trailer I hauled it down with, under a tarp. This makes me sick. My Pop died, so, everything here is on hold until I get his Estate worked through probate court. (All lawyers should die).

I think I've got a script idea that could get me a film project cheaper than anything should be allowed. I've got an idea about a guy that has an on-going convo with God. That way, there's only his inner dialogue and, of course, no sync dialogue and few or no retakes. I could, possibly get the whole 90 minute movie shot with a 3-1 shooting ratio. Considering I'll shoot with 2-perf and short ends... that should come out rather ... well... darn cheap. If I can get the ECNII set up, even cheaper.

I know that sounds kind of dumb- being proud of making the cheapest possible movie, ever. But you know? I can't stop thinking that way.

Hey Paul, not sure why you posted this post to me (I'm actually not here full-time, contrary to popular opinionm, what with 18 credit hours of college and a wedding photography business and all ;-) ). I'm glad to here you're still going at it. Setting up equipment is absolute bitchwork, especially when you're a one-man band. Be patient. Don't rush things, run tests before you do anything important, and make sure you learn what NOT to do with the machine while it is running that could damage it. There's always SOMETHING that it is easy to do that can do damage. I think the companies that make them do it as a trap for lab owners to get easy repair money at intervals. If you need some advice or specific information, I'm sure that I can help or know someone that has an answer to your specific questions. Just PM me or get my email address through Photo.net.

I ran the 16mm, B&W, reversal Houston at Ole Miss back when I was in college, my first time around. I burned up more than my share of film getting that old crusty-dog running well. I only mixed chemicals for the color reversal machine there. I'm facing a new challenge with this ECNII machine. It will be my first color negative machine. Fortunately, I have a densitometer and a microscope. I should be able to eventually tweak this machine up using The Yellow God's test stuff and my meters and scopes... maybe. I hope I can batch process at $0.05 to $0.07 per foot. The proof will be in the pudding (whatever that really means).

I ran the 16mm, B&W, reversal Houston at Ole Miss back when I was in college, my first time around. I burned up more than my share of film getting that old crusty-dog running well. I only mixed chemicals for the color reversal machine there. I'm facing a new challenge with this ECNII machine. It will be my first color negative machine. Fortunately, I have a densitometer and a microscope. I should be able to eventually tweak this machine up using The Yellow God's test stuff and my meters and scopes... maybe. I hope I can batch process at $0.05 to $0.07 per foot. The proof will be in the pudding (whatever that really means).

Well, that's the scripting challenge. It'll probably have the usual dramatic stuff: Romance, death, character challenges, and of course... a happy ending. Specifically? Well, I was thinking that if I get him fired and divorced in the character development scenes then I can get shots of him doing alot of aimless meandering. Where do you go to talk with God, anyway? Seems like you could do it while just riding around on your lawn mower, cutting the grass.

One feature that I'm thinking about is music. I have a notion that instead of real music, the main character sings bits of well known music to himself in his head, just like we all do with ourselves. That way, the character ques the same function in the viewer and all I have to pay for is the composition rights on the music. I don't know if it will even work, but it would be a cool trick to cause the viewer to create their own music track in their mind with only a queing from the movie. What do you think?

Writing the dialogue should be roughly like any dialogue exchange. My biggest uncertainty is with shot selection and composition. I don't want to just lock the camera on the sole character for minutes at a time. I've thought about even cutting to the non-present God in an over-the-shoulder shot... you know, the back of my character's head and nothing in the rest of the largly, empty frame (as if the viewer should see God in the frame). Once the background has been established, I could cut to close-ups of the non visable God (just the background, out of focus). It makes me laugh to think of this. It's sort of like a Director's joke. I don't know. Do you think people will get it?

No offense Paul, but the type of film you describe is more suited to video IMHO, and it's going to have to have some pretty damned good dialogue to make up for being a talking head movie. Narrative drives these types of films, not image quality or cinematography.

I'm kind of confused: you go out and buy your own ECN-II machine, intend to set it up and maintain it, but you're not taking the time to go and find some good locations and either hire someone or put out a call for a good script? There are plenty of writers out there that are struggling to put food on the table. Take the time to find a good story or script for your first full-length film.

Hey, I'm not much older than you are, so I'm not going to call your age into question here, but what POSSIBLE purpose is there to post this reply? Have you shot a single foot of movie film, ever? If the answer is "NO" then you "probably" shouldn't be posting here in the film stocks and processing forum, except for your own personal questions about film stock if/when you have the fortune to actually use some instead of oggling pro movie cameras.

Hey, I'm not much older than you are, so I'm not going to call your age into question here, but what POSSIBLE purpose is there to post this reply? Have you shot a single foot of movie film, ever? If the answer is "NO" then you "probably" shouldn't be posting here in the film stocks and processing forum, except for your own personal questions about film stock if/when you have the fortune to actually use some instead of oggling pro movie cameras.

What the hell are you on about, I was just surprised that VO meant Voice-Over, I was expecting some sort of swanky Colour Correction Software, and yes, I have shot film before, over 200ft infact, I don't understand what I said which made you so crabby.

What the hell are you on about, I was just surprised that VO meant Voice-Over, I was expecting some sort of swanky Colour Correction Software, [. . .]

I'm "on about" you and your pointless posts. This is a forum of professionals. You're not the only one that makes wise-cracks, but when you don't have the knowledge to back these wise-cracks up (Phil Rhodes ahem) then what's the point of posting to begin with? Go outside and join us again when you've shot *2000* feet.

No offense Paul, but the type of film you describe is more suited to video IMHO, and it's going to have to have some pretty damned good dialogue to make up for being a talking head movie. Narrative drives these types of films, not image quality or cinematography.

Anything can be anything if you are willing to break the rules and innovate. While I think a film with a lot of VO doesn't necessarily need high image quality, I can imagine hundreds of scenarios where the character/quality of the image plays a major role in how the film is perceived by the audience. Some of the best imax films have a huge amount of VO but I wouldn't say that VO drives the film. Also Ken Burns uses a lot of VO but again the imagery all be it mostly derived from still images, is a major focus of the film.

I don't think anything Matt said in this particular thread merited that kind of response...he had a valid question even if his prose was somewhat juvenile.

I think this story would only suffer if it was shot on video, I think film is what is going to give it life. I like the idea of the reverse shot where you're supposed to see God, that's creative. Also -- you've probably already thought of this -- but the voice-over should be first-person, to put us actively in the story, and not reflective third-person.

My idea of what you're going for is like a Poe-esque kind of story, if you haven't read his stuff you definitely should; like The Cask of Amontillado, The Fall of the House of Usher, The Tell-Tale Heart, etc. They're all written from a voice-over kind of narrative style.

I think the idea of having only v.o. is not that great of an idea if done in the same fashion as the norm. But then again that in itself might set it apart. But if done out of the box it could be cool too. I had an idea of an all violent movie. The title was violent opera. No talking just pure freaking violence. The shot ratio would be less than 3 to 1 i'm sure. If you want to marry the god idea with the violent idea. We could talk. If just to shoot the crap.

Action usually has a rather high take ratio. Often, that is due to the customarily high cut frequency. But it can also be attributed to the difficulty of getting believable action within the limits of a few takes per set-up. I haven't shot a lot of action scenes for my movies, but I recall that we didn't get a lot of keepers and ate up a lot of tape and time. Continuity can also be an extraordinary challenge. I think it's the kind of thing I'll continue to avoid until I can get bigger financing. That's just me.